切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胃食管反流病电子杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 08 ›› Issue (03) : 129 -135. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2021.03.004

论著

平均夜间基线阻抗在胃食管反流病中的应用
马志凤1, 刘太阳2, 杨杰3,()   
  1. 1. 550002 贵阳,贵州省人民医院消化科
    2. 550002 贵阳,贵州医科大学
    3. 550004 贵阳,贵州医科大学附属医院消化科
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-12 出版日期:2021-08-15
  • 通信作者: 杨杰

Application of mean nocturnal baseline impedance in gastroesophageal reflux disease

Zhifeng Ma1, Taiyang Liu2, Jie Yang3,()   

  1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang 550002, China
    2. Department of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550002, China
    3. Department of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, China
  • Received:2021-03-12 Published:2021-08-15
  • Corresponding author: Jie Yang
引用本文:

马志凤, 刘太阳, 杨杰. 平均夜间基线阻抗在胃食管反流病中的应用[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2021, 08(03): 129-135.

Zhifeng Ma, Taiyang Liu, Jie Yang. Application of mean nocturnal baseline impedance in gastroesophageal reflux disease[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2021, 08(03): 129-135.

目的

通过监测胃食管反流病(GERD)患者食管黏膜食管基线阻抗(BI)并探讨其价值。

方法

对2017年3月至2018年3月在我院诊断为GERD并接受上消化道内镜检查及24 h食道阻抗-pH监测的92例患者,分析不同类型GERD、难治性GERD患者BI特点及GERD症状评分与BI的关系。

结果

92例患者中有75例诊断为非糜烂性反流病(NERD),9例诊断为糜烂性食管炎(EE),8例诊断为Barrett 食管。NERD组在LES上3、5 cm处BI和远端BI均高于EE组。主要表现为胸痛病例其症状评分与LES上3、5、9 cm处BI呈正相关(r=0.420、0.470、0.475,P=0.046、0.024、0.022),主要表现为烧心病例食管BI与其症状评分无相关性。质子泵抑制剂(PPI)有效组在LES上3、5 cm处BI和远端BI均低于难治性烧心组,用于区分PPI有效组与难治性烧心组在LES上3、5 cm处BI的最佳截断值分别为2369,2936 ?。PPI有效组在LES上3、5、7 cm处BI和远端BI均低于难治性胸痛组,用于区分PPI有效组与难治性胸痛在LES上3、5、处BI的最佳截断值分别为3006、3053、3015 ?。

结论

BI在受损黏膜中BI值降低。NERD胸痛症状评分与BI值呈正相关。BI可预测PPI疗效,BI值较高的NERD患者可能无法从PPI中受益。最佳截断值可作为PPI难治性NERD的诊断指标。

Objective

To monitor the esophageal mucosal esophageal baseline impedance (BI) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and explore its value.

Methods

For 92 patients with GERD diagnosed in our hospital from March 2017 to March 2018 and undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal impedance pH monitoring, the BI characteristics of patients with different types of GERD and refractory GERD were analyzed, and the relationship between GERD symptom score and BI were compared.

Results

Of the 92 patients, 75 were diagnosed with non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), 9 were diagnosed with erosive esophagitis (EE), and 8 were diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus. BI at 3 cm and 5 cm and distal Bi above LES in the NERD group were higher than those in the EE group. The symptom score of patients with chest pain was positively correlated with BI at 3 cm, 5 cm, and 9 cm on the LES, while the BI of patients with heartburn had no correlation with the symptom score. Bi at 3 cm, 5 cm and distal BI above LES in PPI effective group were lower than those in refractory heartburn group. The best cut-off values of BI at 3 cm and 5 cm above LES were 2369 Ω and 2936 Ω, respectively. Bi at 3 cm, 5 cm, 7 cm,and distal BI above LES in PPI effective group were lower than those in refractory chest pain group. The best cut-off values for BI at 3 cm, 5 cm, and 7 cm on the LES to distinguish the PPI effective group and refractory chest pain are 3006 Ω, 3053 Ω, and 3015 Ω, respectively.

Conclusion

BI decreased in the damaged mucosa. The chest pain symptom score of NERD patients is positively correlated with the BI value. BI can predict the efficacy of PPI, and NERD patients with higher BI values may not benefit from PPI. The best cut-off value can be used as a diagnostic index for PPI-refractory NERD patients.

表1 NERD和EE组基线阻抗比较(
xˉ
±s
图1 胸痛症状评分与基线阻抗相关性分析
图2 2组烧心症状评分与基线阻抗相关性分析
表2 PPI有效组、难治性烧心组基线阻抗
表3 PPI有效组、难治性胸痛组基线阻抗
图3 PPI有效和难治性烧心受试者工作特征曲线 注:PPI为质子泵抑制剂
图4 PPI有效和难治性胸痛受试者工作特征曲线 注:PPI为质子泵抑制剂
1
朱立人. 24 h食管阻抗-pH监测在NERD诊断中价值的临床研究[D]. 上海: 同济大学医学院,2009
2
Martinucci I, de Bortoli N, Savarino E, et al. Esophageal baseline impedance levels in patients with pathophysiological characteristics of functional heartburn [J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2014, 26(4):546-555.
3
Frazzoni M, Savarino E, Bortoli ND, et al. Analyses of the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance parameters increase the diagnostic yield of patients with reflux disease [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016, 14(1):40-46.
4
Kandulski A, Weigt J, Caro C, et al. Esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance differentiates gastroesophageal reflux disease from functional heartburn [J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 13(6):1075-1081.
5
Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, et al. The montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2006, 101(8):1125-1140.
6
Xie C, Sifrim D, Li Y, et al. Esophageal baseline impedance reflects mucosal integrity and predicts symptomatic outcome with proton pump inhibitor treatment [J]. J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2018, 24(1):43-50.
7
Jiang L, Ye B, Lin L, et al. Role of altered esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance levels in patients with gatroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors [J]. Medicine (Abingdon), 2016, 95(33):e4351.
8
Cho YK, Lee JS, Lee TH, et al. The relationship of the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and esophageal baseline impedance with gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms [J]. J Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 23(2):237-244.
9
Sifrim D, Zerbib F. Diagnosis and management of patients with reflux symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitors [J]. Gut, 2012, 61(9):1340.
10
Roman S, Gyawali CP, Savarino E, et al. Ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux disease: Update of the Porto consensus and recommendations from an international consensus group [J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 29(10):1-15.
11
Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon consensus [J]. Gut, 2018, 67(7):1351-1362.
12
Zhong C, Duan L, Wang K, et al. Esophageal intraluminal baseline impedance is associated with severity of acid reflux and epithelial structural abnormalities in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease [J]. J Gastroenterol, 2013, 48(5):601-610.
13
Kohata Y, Fujiwara Y, Yamagami H, et al. Usefulness of baseline impedance in patients with proton pump inhibitor-refractory nonerosive reflux disease [J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 30(S1):36-40.
14
Patel A, Wang D, Sainani N, et al. Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance on pH-impedance monitoring predicts reflux burden and symptomatic outcome in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2016, 44(8):890-898.
15
Farré R, Blondeau K, Clement D, et al. Evaluation of oesophageal mucosa integrity by the intraluminal impedance technique [J]. Gut, 2011, 60(7):885-892.
16
Fass R, Sifrim D. Management of heartburn not responding to proton pump inhibitors [J]. Gut, 2009, 58(2):295-309.
17
Mainie I, Tutuian R, Shay S, et al. Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring [J]. Gut, 2006, 55(10):1398-1402.
18
El-Serag H, Becher A, Jones R. Systematic review: persistent reflux symptoms on proton pump inhibitor therapy in primary care and community studies [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2010, 32(6):720-737.
19
Frazzoni M, de Bortoli N, Frazzoni L, et al. The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring [J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 29(3).
20
Frazzoni L, Frazzoni M, Bortoli ND, et al. Postreflux swallow‐induced peristaltic wave index and nocturnal baseline impedance can link PPI‐responsive heartburn to reflux better than acid exposure time [J]. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017, 29(11):e13116.
21
Rodriguez-Stanley S, Robinson M, Earnest DL, et al. Esophageal hypersensitivity may be a major cause of heartburn [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 1999, 94(3):628-631.
22
Barish CF, Castell DO, Richter JE. Graded esophageal balloon distention. a new provocative test for noncardiac chest pain [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 1986, 31(12):1292-1298.
23
Hemmink GJ, Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, et al. Esophageal pH-impedance monitoring in patients with therapy-resistant reflux symptoms: 'on' or 'off' proton pump inhibitor? [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2008, 103(10):2446-2453.
24
Balaban DH, Yamamoto Y, Liu J, et al. Sustained esophageal contraction: a marker of esophageal chest pain identified by intraluminal ultrasonography [J]. Gastroenterology, 1999, 116(1):29.
[1] 邢益民, 张天飞, 戴慧勇. 胃肠充盈超声造影检查在反酸、嗳气患者临床诊断中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 303-306.
[2] 李海云, 赵敏娴, 申英末, 杨慧琪. 胃底折叠术预防食管裂孔疝术后并发症的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 485-490.
[3] 玉素江·图荪托合提, 韩琦, 麦麦提艾力·麦麦提明, 黄旭东, 王浩, 克力木·阿不都热依木, 艾克拜尔·艾力. 腹腔镜袖状胃切除或联合食管裂孔疝修补术对肥胖症合并胃食管反流病的中期疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 501-506.
[4] 任传富, 杨志, 徐恩, 何梓芸, 罗板鑫, 陈新, 夏雪峰. 腹腔镜疝修补术联合胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病40 例临床分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 507-511.
[5] 胡志伟, 吴继敏, 汪忠镐, 张美光. 胃食管反流病食管外症状抗反流手术适应证及术前评估[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 241-246.
[6] 胡志伟, 吴继敏, 邓昌荣, 战秀岚, 纪涛, 王峰, 田书瑞, 陈冬, 张玉, 刘健男, 宋庆. 抗反流黏膜套扎治疗顽固性胃食管反流病[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 227-233.
[7] 唐小久, 胡曼, 许必君, 肖亚. 肥胖合并胃食管反流病患者严重程度与其焦虑抑郁及营养状态的相关性研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(04): 360-364.
[8] 张静, 白亦冰, 来要良, 刘永, 和媛媛, 苏敏. 不同体位对胃食管反流病患者食管高分辨率测压的影响[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 115-120.
[9] 张靖, 柏君, 陈玉盟, 张鹏, 侯芳芳, 王军芳, 孙静, 赵士博, 杨喆, 张玥, 张瑞芳, 朱宏斌. 抗反流黏膜消融术治疗胃食管反流病患者的临床疗效[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 121-125.
[10] 华丽, 仲卫冬, 胡根, 张丽英, 邵国益. 手术治疗胃食管反流病对患者生活质量和心理状态影响的研究[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 126-129.
[11] 文明, 张丽, 谢芳, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 构建胃食管反流病患者发生心房颤动的临床预测模型[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 130-136.
[12] 高训锋, 许晓露, 张金辉, 蔡理全, 张恒, 邰沁文. 胃食管反流病与肝胆胰系统疾病的因果关系:一项孟德尔随机化研究[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 143-152.
[13] 刘虎, 任振, 韦笑韩, 潘晨, 吴立胜. 胃食管反流伴食管运动障碍的诊疗进展[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(03): 153-158.
[14] 庄茜钧, 江典轩, 肖英莲. 中国胃食管反流病的诊疗进展[J/OL]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2024, 11(02): 75-80.
[15] 中国医师协会外科医师分会肥胖和代谢病外科专家工作组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会胃食管反流疾病诊疗外科专家工作组, 日本肥胖治疗学会, 韩国减重与代谢外科学会. 袖状胃切除术患者胃食管反流病诊治专家共识(2024版)[J/OL]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 145-162.
阅读次数
全文


摘要